josiesbar (anonymous) says...

You forgot to mention all of the kids who are REALLY starting to get sick of both groups, and join together to form group C.

This group is the one who will put a fence around the playground to keep kids who should be playing in their own playground from taking all of the slides and tire swings from the kids who are supposed to be there.

Group C will also put an end to group A and B from spending next weeks milk money before they get it from mom and dad. This is the group who will tell the other groups to quit going to the teacher all the time, because the other groups consist of big boys and girls who should be able to take care of themselves, instead of having the teacher do it for them. Group C thinks this is just plain lazy.

Group C is the group that is in the middle of the playground, and gets to enjoy the benefits of both sides of the playground. Group C is attracting more and more kids who are getting tired of being on one side of the playground only.

Group A has a donkey for a mascot. Group B has an elephant for a mascot. Group C has chosen the Statue of Liberty for their mascot.

Which group would you rather be in? Vote Libertarian in 2012!!!

April 15, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Pelosi & Obama's comments to the GOP stating "I won", "This will pass - with or without you", "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election," are ALSO well-documented, Doug. Perhaps the dog ate page 2 of your editorial before you handed it in.

Your editorial is fairly accurate, however, you just forgot to point out that for several years, Group B dominated the sandbox & swings while group A looked on. And before that, it was reversed yet again. And, it will probably reverse in the future. GOP attempts to reach out and include Dems for years were just as well documented, and cries of foul were just as unfounded.

Basically, whichever group controls the sandbox & swings is ALWAYS going to "make overtures" (while in reality scorning Group B) and then claim that their cries are "hollow and unfounded". Actually, most of these cries are NOT hollow & unfounded. By whichever side is crying them. That's just the way politics works, unfortunately.

The pendulum has now swung the other way. Yes, the era of getting everything the GOP desires has ended. We have now entered the era of getting everything the Democrats desire. That is the problem when 1 party controls all 3 branches. Does that make it any better or any worse?

Again, your editorial is accurate to a large extent, but given the fact that you act as though you just woke up yesterday and this all started happening for the first time, I can come to only 1 of 2 logical conclusions:

1) You have suffered a serious blow to the head and have a serious case of amnesia where US politics is concerned
2) This is truly your first foray into our political system, you really haven't been involved for years, so you CAN be excused. I really don't know your age, maybe you DID just turn 18 recently and this is the first election/politics you've ever been involved in. And you never paid attention in history class because you found it boring.

I'm with the above. I vote for group C. Except I fear they will eventually end up being just like the other 2. Power corrupts eventually...... :(

April 15, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

I hesitate to add this because the banter is getting really old, but Doug's description sounds painfully like the smoking ban groups as well.

Having met Doug, and by considering your conclusions, I'd say that you shouldn't quit your day job to become a profiler open_eyes.

April 15, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, I didn't mean to be rude even though I may have come across that way, but I read back thru his article VERY carefully, looking for examples of him comparing where todays Dems are acting just like the Repbs did, and todays Repubs are acting just like the Dems did, and didn't find any. I remember well Bush's statement that he believed the American people had "given him a mandate" in 2004. So if someone can show me where he wrote this exact same article from the other angle in 2000, 2002, and 2004, then I will offer him my sincerest apology.

However, in the absence of that, I can only come to 1 of 3 conclusions about why the same article wasn't written during those 6 years. The first (and most likely) is that things were pretty much just reversed when the GOP had all 3, allthough they probably had to work with the other side at least a LITTLE more than our current crop, since their margin of majority wasn't as large.

But, since we very rarely seem to deal with reality on here, there can be only 2 other possibilities:

1) The GOP was VERY, very friendly and reached out to include the Dems at every opportunity, never, ever trying to cram anything down their throats. (Yeah, right).

2) The Dems realized they had lost, therefore were VERY generous, never complained, always gave the GOP what they wanted since that was what the American people had voted for.

Heck, I'll even give you an example. In 2003, we heard this from the Dems: "What's that, Mr. President Bush? You want to add regulation to Fannie & Freddie? You think they are going to cause a dangerous financial collapse if we don't? Absolutely! Whatever you say, Mr. President! We'll get right on it! Your wish is our command!"

Now, I wasn't always bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in history class either, so someone correct me if I fell asleep during that part and that isn't quite the way it happened....

April 15, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Doug's a pretty good guy, but his usual left wing rant is monotonous. As a registered Republican ( I know, I'm ashamed of it) and an American citizen, I feel I have the right to bellyache about where we're now being led by the Democratic Party, and before by the almost equally offending Republicans.
So far, all the measures taken by Obama's economic team in response to the financial crisis, have pointed their aim at protecting the wealth of the Wall Street aristocrats. Treasury Secretary Geithner announced a scheme to enable the banks to offload their toxic assets by subsidizing hedge-funds and private-equity firms to purchase them at inflated prices, using hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to cover any losses, and insure double-digit profits for the speculators.
George W. wasn't much better, but Obama seems to want to outspend that idiot. With the amount of money the taxpayer is being billed for, one would think Emporia could afford a very nice, no, extra nice merry-go-round.

April 15, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Left-wing, Right-wing liberal, conservative, republican, democrat.

As long as the two all powerfull parties can keep the people fighting among themselves and calling each other names and questioning ones patriotism, things will stay the same. It is time for a 3rd and maybe 4th party to be a nationwide force to be reckoned with. Then and only then will politicians actually listen to the voters. Vote the candidate, not the party.

April 15, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"Doug's description sounds painfully like the smoking ban groups as well.".

In what way exactly?

Gazette headline: "Smoking ban takes effect quietly".
"Businesses, customers report no problems".

I truly MUST be one of the oldest people here. I can remember way, way, way back to the fall of 2008, when the gay marriage ban was upheld in California. Riots, protests, marches, a little old lady about 80 with a cross ripped from her hands and stomped on by a group, churches vandalized, church services disrupted, etc..... (all by the conservative right, of course.... nobody else would act that way, right????).

And here's my favorite line: "Group A keeps calling to the Group B kids to come over and join them; maybe they can set up a baseball game or something".

What I saw, was Group A sent a roster over to Group B to sign. They were told they were not allowed to read it. Sign it and send it back or be labeled a crier of unfounded fouls. When Group A took over the playground, they promised they would not let Porky Pig play shortstop anymore. Once the roster was signed (at threat of an inescapable painful barrage of dodgeballs and wedgies) - we found out not only was Porky at shortstop, but his brother was at second, and his cousins the Three Little Pigs were all manning the outfield.

Doug, I've got a stack of documents I'd like you to sign. 1100 pages of them. No, you don't get to read any of it first. Why, you ask? Because I've got a 4-day holiday coming up, that's why! Sign it now or I will label you a whiner and a bellyacher!

"either grow up and help by providing useful ......proposals, or get out of the way..."

Do I really need to post a zillion links to alternative budget proposals put forth by the GOP? Goodness, doesn't MSNBC air ANY of that?????? Does anyone do any research anymore before they post an editorial?

April 15, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Do I really need to post a zillion links to alternative budget proposals put forth by the GOP? Goodness, doesn't MSNBC air ANY of that?????? Does anyone do any research anymore before they post an editorial?"

Yes give me a zillion please, this last budget the GOP paraded as an alternative was a complete joke, I have been watching more and more Fox news lately, and what is odd is that I am seeing more and more conservatives actually leaning more Obama's direction than the right. It's damn good TV for a laugh, but so is MSNBC for that matter. All they do is whine and complain, I have yet to see or read anything of real substance, and if there is something out there it has yet to be embraced and supported by the right as it needs to be.

April 15, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Good to hear you say that, goodoleboy, I thought I was the only one who had noticed the FOX beginning to be a bit more supportive of President Obama. Whew! Good to see it too.

April 15, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Sorry goodoleboy, the 3,000 char limit here won't let me come anywhere close to a zillion links. :)
So, it was a complete joke - says who? The Dems? GEE, WHAT a surprise. Was it perfect? No, far from it. But I think it was better than our current one. Personally, I think the current budget is the one that is a complete joke (and alot of tea parties around the country today apparently agree) - is my opinion any more or less than those that label the GOP proposal(s) a joke? Why? I've seen plenty of ranting & raving about Bush's deficit, why are the same deficit-haters so suddenly silent now? When does a joke suddenly not become a joke? (Apparently, the answer to that is, "when Obama says its no longer funny.....") sorry, my sense of humor doesn't turn on a whim that fast.... :)

Oh now bite your tongue, the 2 of you. Fox CAN'T be fair. You've both stated that many times. Personally, since I've apparently watched it much longer than either of you, I've seen them be supportive of liberals and critical of conservatives in the past plenty of times. You've just been told that they weren't, and believed it. Now that you're watching it....... you're finding out dangit, old open_eyes might have been right all along. (But don't worry, I won't force you to publicly come out and admit it, you can do it in your own subtle way - LOL). And here I am thinking they've actually slid farther to the right without Combes....... :)

April 15, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YaHooSis48 (anonymous) says...

OpenEyes,I tend to agree with you! I have a stack of documents that I want Doug to sign and I prefer he take no time to read them,as President of the United States, I won and I might possibly have an agenda I don't want anyone to have time to figure out. That agenda is apparently, "YES WE CAN, bankrupt America!" By the way, as an American, I have the right to bellyache! In fact I believe that so many of us are getting fed up that you will soon see these Americans rise up and demand to be heard. I think you will see more and more interested in politics and begin voting out some of the lying,cheating,greedy SOB's who are in right now. The time for tolerance has passed! This is America, we don't redistribute wealth, WE EARN IT! It is very hard to stand back and watch a young pup like Obama destroy our grandchildren's future. It makes me a bit sick that he is getting his administrative experience in the highest position in the land. We cannot spend our way out of debt.We need to be cutting Big Government, not adding to it. In closing, might I add: DON'T STEAL, the government hates competition!!!!

April 15, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"So, it was a complete joke - says who?"

Well, says me sir. I've yet to be able to read anything of substance other than the vague 16 page report that talks of how they will do things(and what little insight they gave us both Repubs and Dems already disapproved of). All this small government that they speak of is hollow talk or no substance. Both are big pro gov in my eyes.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/1...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200...

April 15, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Yahoo,

Taxes on the rich were %10 higher during the Reagan era, raising them 2-3% is wealth redistribution? What is this wealth redistribution exactly?

April 15, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Can't understand it, I didn't see Doug at the tea party this afternoon

April 15, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

oxen- I was there from 330 on.I thanked a few speakers that were there.Probably saw you.

April 15, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

Hey Doug. What hand do you write with? So you are the bigger bully huh? Deal in absolutes like the Republicans huh? You and Patrick S Kelley hang out much? You are no better than all the clowns in Washington spending our money like drunken sailors in a calculated power grab. You are mainlining, free basing and snorting the kool aid. I am for option C since you are the alternative.

Two wrongs don't make a right. What did Obozo run on in 2008? Change you can believe in! Transparency in government! Every bill I sign will be scrutinized line by line and published online for TAXPAYERS for 48 hours before it is signed! All a load of hot garbage! Shrub (W) did the same thing but for a different audience.

All you are saying to me is that you picked the other side of losers and now you are gloating. Stay classy Doug McGaw!

April 15, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I read your first link, goodoleboy, right down to the very bottom where it stated "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer". But he raised some good points I agreed with, especially the expansion of government under Bush. So I read some further articles by him, I couldn't really find anytime he had anything good to say about conservatives & bad to say about dems, other than his admission that "FDR's New Deal ideas didn't always work -- some like the National Recovery Act were downright failures" but once I ran across his article saying "Frank, Dodd Emerge as Legislative Leaders Amid Financial Crisis.......Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, looks like a giant these days. As the financial markets have plummeted...." I lost all respect for the man's opinions.
I liked your second article, I got a good laugh out of the last paragraph: "What the Republicans spent money on was "wasteful spending." What the Democrats want ......are "investments." LOL

And you, sir, are entitled to your opinion that the GOP budget is a joke - as for Dems disapproving of it..... gee, now there's a real no-brainer - what did you expect? I think you are not being entirely accurate to throw out a blanket statement that Repubs disapprove of it as well. Maybe some, but then again, 20 House dems voted against Obama's budget, and some prominent ones such as Nelson & Bayh publicly voiced their concerns over it. But was the GOP proposal criticized just a little too unfairly?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

doesn't seem to paint the vague picture and disapproval that we know will come from the left and dems regardless of what was offered.

"While the minority party in Congress typically offers an alternative budget plan that is widely ignored, this year's proposal has drawn fresh attention thanks to the scathing GOP criticism of Obama's budget plans and the president's challenge to the GOP to offer a constructive alternative. "

Hmmm..... typically widely ignored.... I wonder how many of the dem budget plans from 2000 to 2004 were vague jokes?

I still think the current budget is a joke. And I would say there are plenty in agreement with me, also. But we shall see. I may be proved wrong. Time will tell.

April 15, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

My apologies, blulitespecial

April 16, 2009 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Just because his articles are not to your flavor or liking does not make his points any less valid, a good point is a good point. As for the budget, the problem is not whether it is insignificant or not, the problem is that it does not outline hardly anything at all, just makes claims. I expect more from the right, perhaps they just want to complain and not unveil their ideas? You tell me.

April 16, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm sorry you skipped over the part where I stated "he raised some good points I agreed with". You've seemed in the past to dismiss anything positive about the previous administration that is "not to your flavor of liking". And if I or anyone say that there ARE some, I am sure you will decry it. So I'm not bothered.
As for the budget, I've seen quite a few projections and estimates that disagree widely from the current budgets "claims". How is it different? There are numbers posted all over the link I posted. There are numbers all over Obama's budget. There are deficit projections and "claims" all over the GOP budget. There are deficit projections and "claims" all over the Dem budget. And lots of economists and experts who have raised quite an eyebrow over some rosy projections. Why is a projection on one side taken as gospel fact that it will happen, and projections on the other side treated as "vague claims". Can anyone say with certainty that the deficit will be exactly what Obama's budget forecasts it will be in the future? If not, than how is that not some "claim"? You tell me......

April 16, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Obama budget "claims".......

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_...

http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/WA...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12387...

April 16, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Claims that actually cite the how they hope to accomplish their agenda is one thing, claims made by a 16 page report with little or no information on the how are another. I take nothing as the gospel, but when it comes to substance or hell even an attempt the Dem's budget is a lot more believable. Its like the kids that hand in a 2 page paper with no facts or citations vs. the ones with a 20 page paper with all the trimmings. Even Glen Beck and Hannity called it a joke, who am I to disagree.

PS. I have never stated that the Bush administration did 0 good, find me a post where I stated that. My point here is that you did not like that editorial, fair enough, I don't like all his either but that does not make the points he made in that article invalid, you went after the author, when I could care less about the guy, just the valid points he did in fact make.

April 16, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, now those claims are interesting, goodoleboy, that Beck & Hannity call it a joke. Much as I hate to post it, this came from Media Matters itself, I didn't want you to think I pulled it from some right-wing biased blog :)

"Hannity Praises GOP Budget Blueprint"

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/20...

I searched and couldn't find anything where Hannity or Beck called it a joke. Perhaps you could show me. I did find plenty where they both called the Obama budget a joke, and plenty where Obama called the GOP budget a joke, however.

And I also cannot find anywhere where I claimed that you stated the Bush administration did 0 good, I know that you HAVE said they did some good things. I said if others thought it was good but it was not to your flavor of liking you would decry it. Which we all do. This Obama budget "isn't to my flavor of liking" but it is to others. The GOP budget may not be to your flavor of liking, but there ARE others to whom it is more palatable than the alternative. I personally am not all that in love with the GOP budget - but I DO think it is better than the alternative of spending like there is no tomorrow. For someone who sure has blasted budget deficits in the past, you sure seem to have softened on that point considerably of late. And besides, honestly I can't remember a time when a minority party was expected to have an alternative, fully fleshed out budget plan in place at the same time the president released his. Isn't it typical that the president initiates the process and his party in Congress generally supports it, while the opposition tries to push back?

You know, this reminds me of the viewer email segment at the end of each O'Reilly show. There's always several emails, both commenting on the exact same segment of the show, one complains that O'Reilly is too far right, and is a conservative kook, and the very next letter, about the exact same segment, complains that he is way too far left, and is a liberal kook.

So if you say the glass is half empty, and I say it is half full, who's glass really has the most water in it in all truthfulness? And tomorrow, when we find out that Obama poured the water in the glass, and not Bush, (even though it came out of the same pitcher), and I change and decide the glass is now half empty, and you claim it is half full, will it help the man dying of thirst in the desert any more than yesterday's glass did?

You know goodoleboy, I really do respect your opinions, maybe we should just both throw some water balloons at the thirsty guy in the desert and let him worry about it - LOL :)

April 16, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

The issue is the GOP budget COULD be to the flavor of my liking if it outlined HOW they were to accomplish their claims, this is my entire issue with it. Also I the references I made to Hannity and Glen Beck were approx mid March on air comments, all I can give you for source on that, apologies. I have never been anti conservative, in fact I agree a great deal with with them in certain areas, but they have a lot to prove, they lost my trust, perhaps going the extra mile and preparing a budget alternative to the left would go a long way to showing the people of our nation that they do actually want to put forth the effort to further their causes, they half assed it, that is what bothers me most, they can't afford to do that.

My great wish is that one day I vote on a candidate based on the fact he/she will be the best for the job, not the lesser of the 2 evils.

April 17, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )